Religion and public policy

Faiths, town halls and language

From Babel to Pentecost

LOCAL authorities in Britain spend a lot of money trying to make themselves understood. The council in Southwark, part of south London, offers translation into 70 languages; the authorities in Crawley, near England's south coast, spent £600 translating a lifestyle magazine into Urdu at the request of one citizen. Haringey in north London regularly posts translated versions of documents which nobody downloads. Such excesses have prompted Eric Pickles, the communities minister, to urge councils to stop wasting money on foreign tongues and encourage people to master English. But even when they are using Shakespeare's tongue, councils have a communication problem. They have been urged to stop using terms like "horizon-scanning", "functionality" and "coterminosity" that baffle the public.

That is one of the reasons why local authorities and religious communities have trouble getting through to one another; and they do need to talk. A group of Christian legislators, drawn from both chambers of the British parliament, has just issued a report about co-operation between councils and faith groups; it finds that the relationship is extensive but often dysfunctional because the two sides can't make each other out. Up and down Britain, churches and other religious groups organise food banks, debt advice centres, and care for the elderly. Sometimes this is done in loose co-operation with the council, and sometimes services are formally contracted out. I hope to describe some of these partnerships—what works and what doesn't—in future postings.

There are some objective problems which no linguistic legerdemain can dispel. Local authorities place overwhelming emphasis on "equality" in the provision of all services. Councils fear that faith groups will use their social-service roles to propagate their own beliefs or to practise discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Churches, for their part, are often wary of taking money from councils who may try to impose on them an ideology which they find alien. This gap, plus the government's equality law, has already led to a virtual collapse in the role once played by Catholic adoption agencies in finding homes for children.

But quite often, the report found after sifting through answers from 155 councils, the gap is bridgeable; religions can give the necessary assurances that they will treat everybody alike. It was a pity, though, that "faith groups have to wade through labyrinthine processes with swathes of acronyms to decode" when dealing with local authority. Indeed, several council responses to the survey had "included incomprehensible jargon-filled paragraphs" which made it "unsurprising" that faith groups were wary of formal co-operation.

About two councils in five had a dedicated "faith officer" whose job was to liaise with religious groups; but in many places, this role had been merged with that of "equality and diversity" officer. And whatever their titles, these municipal bureaucrats had yet to a correct a situation where "local authorities often have a poor understanding of faith groups"....and levels of "religious literacy" were low.

All of this makes sense. But it is also true that religious groups use arcane language which outsiders (including local council officers) would find baffling. Almost all religions involve an elaborate set of practices and beliefs, evolved over many centuries, whose vocabulary is highly specific. Add to that the fact that many religions pray and preach in languages other than English. And in traditional religious communities, the basics of faith hardly need to be articulated; they are passed on, by osmosis, from one generation to another.

But for Britain's religions and town halls to communicate, both sides will have to learn how to explain themselves better. At their worst, local government mandarins and many religious types are guilty of the same sin: they use arcane language to preserve their own status and exclude outsiders. Perhaps a dollop of American culture can help. Europeans who travel to the United States are often impressed that members of small communities (geographical, religious or any other kind) have a good ability to describe their main features to an outsider, a skill that reflects America's mobility and fluidity. ("Our little town was founded by Ruritanian settlers and it's famous for making ball-bearings and cakes...") It will help if Britain's priests, rabbis and imams could be similarly clear next time the town council's diversity officer calls to do some benchmarking of their coterminosity.

Readers' comments

All levels of British government would do well to stay clear of religious organizations of all kinds. The basic purpose of government is to provide services to and ensure the quality of life of all people. The basic purpose of organized religions is to propagate their faith, and convert those lesser unfortunate people who are not yet true believers. Yes, there may be some problems of language between government and religions, but there are much bigger problems involving basic purposes that are simply not compatible.

So let's get this straight. The English language which is probably the most internationaly spoken language in the world, is spoken everywhere except in London?! London city boroughs have to spend fortunes to translate public documents into 70(?!) different languages, because londoners don't speak English? There's multi-culti for you! No wonder 600.000 English londoners have left London over the past decade... Yet another great article on the depressing portrait of a ridiculous politically correct society.

Bureaucrat: (gives a heavy sigh, speaks slowly and clearly and this bit I'll translate). "OK, here is your next appointment. We will arrange a translator if necessary".

Moral: there's actually no obligation to make it easy, at public expense.

2. Religious / administrative challenges:

The difficulty here is that church/state relations are incredibly culturally intertwined and difficult to separate. And muslim organisations in particular find it difficult. But two hopeful straws in the wind.

a) At state level, various german states have finally started to agree contracts between themselves and a range of cultural and religious "muslim" organisations. The fact is, there's no such thing as a "muslim" organisation. There's hundreds, divided along religious and cultural lines. But these contracts cover such things as official recognition of religious qualifications, religious teaching in junior schools, and so on.

b) The first ever muslim organisation (Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat) achieved this week the formal legal status "Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts", by which they are on a similar tax and legal footing to christian organisations, and can act accordingly.

It's truly laudable that faith groups are willing to "...organise food banks, debt advice centres, and care for the elderly..." Good people, giving up time and resources to help others.

But why does it have to be tied to "faith" (meaning a devotion to the supernatural)? Can people not organise themselves in groups that help their community without attaching themselves to a religion?

And would not such secular groups be more likely to deliver help without strings? We can't ignore the likelihood that faith groups are providing help in order to assist their desire to proselytise (recruit converts to their flavour of religion).

Governments should not give way to minority groups unwilling to learn to communicate clearly with the majority who do not belong to their group. It should be the duty and responsibility of the leaders of faith groups, as this post rightly suggests. to learn straight forward English to enable them communicate with the wider public , otherwise they deserve to be charged with subversion.
As for individuals, it is totally ridiculous for anyone emigrating to another country to expect that the new society they emigrate to should make adjustments for them in regard to their language or culture. When in Rome, do like the Romans, is not stupid advice.

There is no reason at all, of course, why non-religious groups could not organize themselves to do these kinds of things. But the reality is that such groups rarely do get set up. Whereas religious groups routinely do take on these functions.